Is the "Woke mob" destroying college education?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

The people hand wringing about Nazis not being treated with enough respect are not actually centrists and moderates, they just pretend to be to launder their reactionary views.

The people being deplatformed by campus mobs are not actually Nazis, they just look like Nazis if you have come to believe all conservatives are Nazis.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

The people hand wringing about Nazis not being treated with enough respect are not actually centrists and moderates, they just pretend to be to launder their reactionary views.

Why isn’t it the case that some of them are centrists and moderates and some of them aren’t?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The people being deplatformed by campus mobs are not actually Nazis, they just look like Nazis if you have come to believe all conservatives are Nazis.

Kind of silly to call all conservatives "Nazis".

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

An equally extreme but less inflammatory choice would have been something along the lines of The Flat Earth Society.

The Flat Earth Society isn't as extreme as Nazis, the latter of whom is an actual threat in a great many ways that the former is not. Again, the Nazi example wasn't even enough so trying to pretend another example would have been just isn't credible. The Nazi example with real Nazis as opposed to hypothetical ones isn't even enough.

Quote:

Would you care to explain what counts as meaningful or meaningless opposition?

In detail I will absolutely not. The Line Drawing Fallacy will be the word of the day if that route is gone down.

What I will say is that no matter where the line could possibly be drawn, those refusing to acknowledge allied white supremacist groups (Nazis) marching on a campus doing violence to keep white supremacy influence would also impact participation in guest speaking will forever be firmly on the wrong side of it. Unequivocally.

If one advances the idea that disruptive protests against some specific speakers is a grave concern that will chill the free exchange of ideas (destroy education), but then pretends that Nazi violence and power wouldn't do the same, they are either impressively foolish, or monstrously dishonest. Either way, they can't or won't be able to do anything about it.

It cannot be the case that disrupting some conservative speakers is a threat but literally threatening and doing violence to advance a system that would officially silence all non-Nazis is not.

Literal Nazis doing violence to silence opposition in real life wasn't enough to convince such people. You truly need to adjust your understanding of who is a threat to education and a great many other things right now.

[d4m10n]

Who is pretending Nazi violence gets a pass when we're talking about a general prohibition on mob violence to silence speech? Just because we're short on examples of Nazis preventing campus speech doesn't make it any less damnable if they were to actually do so.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Who is pretending Nazi violence gets a pass when we're talking about a general prohibition on mob violence to silence speech? Just because we're short on examples of Nazis preventing campus speech doesn't make it any less damnable if they were to actually do so.

You are. Specifically. You're treating critical thinking like a system to be gamed complete with magic words that if you avoid saying you can pretend you're not making the argument. If you don't admit to it, it doesn't count.

Which isn't how it works. You're denying that Nazis marching and doing violence to uphold white supremacy isn't preventing campus speech...well because you don't think it counts. It's as if you want to pretend trying to silence everyone else doesn't include campus speech because it isn't singled out specifically.

We don't have to pretend we don't know what Nazis want.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Cat Not Included

There is a natural climatic cycle. The current temperature change is absolutely not part of it and is unprecedented in all of measurable temperate history (which, through various means, goes back REALLY REALLY FAR). Your 'many experts' is BS; there's near total consensus - along the order of 98% last I heard - among the scientific community that human caused global climate change happening. There are a few "experts" saying the Earth is flat too.

Just to interject here...for the past 25 years I've worked in a pretty closely related field and interacted with quite a few climatologists. There's a bit more diversity of opinion than you (or the press) represent.

I'm not going to go further in that direction, because I would end up arguing a position that is not my own.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The Flat Earth Society isn't as extreme as Nazis, the latter of whom is an actual threat in a great many ways that the former is not. Again, the Nazi example wasn't even enough so trying to pretend another example would have been just isn't credible. The Nazi example with real Nazis as opposed to hypothetical ones isn't even enough.



In detail I will absolutely not. The Line Drawing Fallacy will be the word of the day if that route is gone down.

What I will say is that no matter where the line could possibly be drawn, those refusing to acknowledge allied white supremacist groups (Nazis) marching on a campus doing violence to keep white supremacy influence would also impact participation in guest speaking will forever be firmly on the wrong side of it. Unequivocally.

If one advances the idea that disruptive protests against some specific speakers is a grave concern that will chill the free exchange of ideas (destroy education), but then pretends that Nazi violence and power wouldn't do the same, they are either impressively foolish, or monstrously dishonest. Either way, they can't or won't be able to do anything about it.

It cannot be the case that disrupting some conservative speakers is a threat but literally threatening and doing violence to advance a system that would officially silence all non-Nazis is not.

Literal Nazis doing violence to silence opposition in real life wasn't enough to convince such people. You truly need to adjust your understanding of who is a threat to education and a great many other things right now.

Suppose that the hypothetical Nazi organization from comment #1063 had invited a speaker from B'nai B'rith international. This illustrates that the gnome's original conclusion does not always follow, as gnome (sort of) acknowledged in #1088.

In the past I might have regarded the discussion stemming from comment #1063 as merely an unenlightening tangent. Now I will not phrase my next point as a question, as d4m10n just did. No one in this thread is condoning any sort of Nazi violence. No one. The longer the discussion about Nazis has gone on, the more I am convinced that this is a conscious or subconscious diversion to avoid acknowledging the misbehaviors of protestors, especially when they allegedly became violent (at SFSU) or became undisputably violent (at Middlebury).

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Horhang

She was 5th in the 200 free in the NCAA championships. How is she not an elite athlete?

Because 5th in student athletics even at a national level only translates into a professional career very rarely.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by TomB

Just to interject here...for the past 25 years I've worked in a pretty closely related field and interacted with quite a few climatologists. There's a bit more diversity of opinion than you (or the press) represent.



I'm not going to go further in that direction, because I would end up arguing a position that is not my own.

With the understanding that you are not taking these positions yourself, can you open a thread to describe the nature of the varying opinions? Does it go deep down to questioning whether climate change/global warming is occurring? Or if it is, that it is largely manmade? Or is it more questioning to what degree and timeline of consequences?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Because 5th in student athletics even at a national level only translates into a professional career very rarely.

Whether or not she has a professional career ahead of her is irrelevant. You were attempting to dismiss her by characterizing her as a mediocre swimmer when in fact her accomplishments prove otherwise.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

Suppose that the hypothetical Nazi organization from comment #1063 had invited a speaker from B'nai B'rith international. This illustrates that the gnome's original conclusion does not always follow, as gnome (sort of) acknowledged in #1088.

In the past I might have regarded the discussion stemming from comment #1063 as merely an unenlightening tangent. Now I will not phrase my next point as a question, as d4m10n just did. No one in this thread is condoning any sort of Nazi violence. No one. The longer the discussion about Nazis has gone on, the more I am convinced that this is a conscious or subconscious diversion to avoid acknowledging the misbehaviors of protestors, especially when they allegedly became violent (at SFSU) or became undisputably violent (at Middlebury).

Agreed 100%. This obsession with focusing on real or imaginary Nazis, is simply a tactic to excuse the violence and inappropriate behavior of other persons. Because, who wants to defend Nazis?

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by gnome

With the understanding that you are not taking these positions yourself, can you open a thread to describe the nature of the varying opinions? Does it go deep down to questioning whether climate change/global warming is occurring? Or if it is, that it is largely manmade? Or is it more questioning to what degree and timeline of consequences?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

It is surely an interesting discussion, and I'd definitely be following along if someone were to open a thread to discuss it, but the specifics are irrelevant to this discussion.

Cat Not Included actually proves the point, although they probably didn't intend to do so, when in successive posts s/he;

• Dismisses those who think the majority of global warming is brought on by the natural cycle of warming/cooling.
• Dismisses the fact that Riley Gaines had to deal with an angry, violent mob who wanted to silence her.
• Justifies assailing those who support Trump by claiming he "killed hundreds of thousands of Americans"

The point being, these people have their opinions, which they believe to be indisputably correct, and they believe they are justified in silencing those who disagree with them. In doing so they trample the first amendment and, as it applies to this thread, it damages the educational experience on college campuses.

[Cat Not Included]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

Which ones? Well, let's see...

* Actively fights against free speech by supporting campaigns of death threats to people they dislike
* Are big fans of rape
* Thought it would be a good plan to run around campuses wearing diapers

Care to provide the evidence that any of the above is even remotely true?

Here's a smattering of links for you. This is not comprehensive. But then, you didn't question the mass murder or violent overthrow of the government, which frankly make the rest of these seem pretty small potatoes.

A) Regarding free speech, TPUSA is responsible for the 'professor watchlist'. A few random quotes about it:

Quote:

That’s not surprising given that Turning Point’s work has sparked vicious campaigns of online harassment against faculty members...

Quote:

There’s an entire cottage industry for reporting on controversial things that faculty members say, which then riles up Internet outrage mobs, who then start to tweet at schools, or post on Facebook, and try to get schools to get rid of people who they disagree with,” Cohn says.

One of the websites, called Professor Watchlist, was started by Charlie Kirk.

https://fhsu-aaup.org/2018/03/13/the...sor-watchlist/

B) Regarding rape:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ult-harassment

https://lawandcrime.com/caught-on-vi...-and-jew-hate/

C) Regarding the diaper incident:
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/tpu...st-kent-state/

Quote:

So BLM doesn't spread hate and violence? I'm pretty sure they were pretty heavy into promoting hate and violence directed at police. I personally witnessed molotov cocktails and rocks being thrown at cops, flipping cars, burning down buildings, etc. during BLM protests/riots. But yeah, no spreading of hate or violence.

BLM is a movement in response to system police misconduct, mistreatment, and murder mostly targeting black citizens. They had a ten point agenda, none of which struck me as at all 'hateful'. I'm curious to which of their points you found 'hateful'. They seemed to me to range from "Oh my titan, why aren't we doing that already?" (for stuff like having independent groups to investigate police misconduct instead of letting a police department investigate their own misconduct charges, which is just nuts) to "nice idea but maybe overly optimistic" (like having police always drawn from the neighborhoods they serve), but none seemed hateful or even unreasonable.

The BLM protests involved an estimated 15-25 million people spread across the country and were OVERWHELMINGLY peaceful. At a glance from stats from a variety of articles, looks like 94% or more peaceful is a pretty usual number. Some specific stats in article from the Christian Science Monitor (https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-data-confirms) include that 98% had no injuries and 97% had no property damage. I'm not sure college football parties are that safe.

Yes, there were violent incidents in conjunction with the protests. I'm sure some involved actual protestors - it would be really unlikely if they didn't. However, we well know that there are also just troublemakers who'll take advantage of situations, we know agent provocateur are a thing. As I understand, the first major arson in the Minneapolis protests was done by a white guy in a gas mask who wasn't directly with the protesters. Could he have been a BLM protestor? Sure, but he just as easily might not have been. The major destruction in Minneapolis (I hope I'm getting my place right...going a lot from memory here) also followed the police deciding to tear gas peaceful protestors. So, yeah, when you engage in systemic abuse of a people and then commit war crimes against them, stuff is likely to get really crappy. A really good solution is DON'T F'IN OPPRESS PEOPLE AND COMMIT WAR CRIMES AGAINST THEM!

Despite that, very little indication that these isolated bits of violence were encouraged, directed, or supported by BLM as a movement.

Of course, I guess if you think "please stop killing us' is hateful...

[Cat Not Included]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The thread that I read was from a student run outlet called Golden Gate Xpress.

https://twitter.com/GGXnews/status/1644184242602270720

Thanks for the link! Those are indeed more "mob" looking than the original video posted most places. But, still seems a bit...I dunno...weak as far as 'angry mob' goes?

Some people hanging around the hall, putting on a trans pride flag, someone shouts "we're sick of this ****".

Some of them seem pretty aggressive and insulting the police there. Some comments about abuse? Was there a lot of police violence there recently, maybe during the BLM protests? I have no idea. The police are doing a good job of not responding or escalating (yay!), though it doesn't seem like they're trying to deescalate either.

Some more people hanging around. Someone comments about how she should pay them to let her out. Seems to be about getting the money back that they had to pay her for her to be there (I think she didn't actually get paid for this? I can understand being upset about YOUR money that you're going into major debt for being spent to bring people sponsored by the TPUSA group...). The tone is pretty joking though. I'm not clear on what they're actually doing to "keep" her there in the first place...looks like the police are doing that.

The picture and image of the actual TP people, they seem pretty chill. Laughing. Stopping to take selfies on the way out. They do get 'booed' on their way out.

But...this all seems pretty mild. It doesn't look to me like anyone in the crowd is armed. Nobody's building a gallows. They're not rushing the police. They're not marching in formation carrying torches. Maybe there's more footage that actually shows what happened that was like...actually unreasonably bad? Or for those who are outrage about this, which actually happened that you are outraged about?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Cat Not Included

Here's a smattering of links for you. This is not comprehensive. But then, you didn't question the mass murder or violent overthrow of the government, which frankly make the rest of these seem pretty small potatoes.

A) Regarding free speech, TPUSA is responsible for the 'professor watchlist'. A few random quotes about it:





https://fhsu-aaup.org/2018/03/13/the...sor-watchlist/

B) Regarding rape:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ult-harassment

https://lawandcrime.com/caught-on-vi...-and-jew-hate/

C) Regarding the diaper incident:
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/tpu...st-kent-state/




BLM is a movement in response to system police misconduct, mistreatment, and murder mostly targeting black citizens. They had a ten point agenda, none of which struck me as at all 'hateful'. I'm curious to which of their points you found 'hateful'. They seemed to me to range from "Oh my titan, why aren't we doing that already?" (for stuff like having independent groups to investigate police misconduct instead of letting a police department investigate their own misconduct charges, which is just nuts) to "nice idea but maybe overly optimistic" (like having police always drawn from the neighborhoods they serve), but none seemed hateful or even unreasonable.

The BLM protests involved an estimated 15-25 million people spread across the country and were OVERWHELMINGLY peaceful. At a glance from stats from a variety of articles, looks like 94% or more peaceful is a pretty usual number. Some specific stats in article from the Christian Science Monitor (https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-data-confirms) include that 98% had no injuries and 97% had no property damage. I'm not sure college football parties are that safe.

Yes, there were violent incidents in conjunction with the protests. I'm sure some involved actual protestors - it would be really unlikely if they didn't. However, we well know that there are also just troublemakers who'll take advantage of situations, we know agent provocateur are a thing. As I understand, the first major arson in the Minneapolis protests was done by a white guy in a gas mask who wasn't directly with the protesters. Could he have been a BLM protestor? Sure, but he just as easily might not have been. The major destruction in Minneapolis (I hope I'm getting my place right...going a lot from memory here) also followed the police deciding to tear gas peaceful protestors. So, yeah, when you engage in systemic abuse of a people and then commit war crimes against them, stuff is likely to get really crappy. A really good solution is DON'T F'IN OPPRESS PEOPLE AND COMMIT WAR CRIMES AGAINST THEM!

Despite that, very little indication that these isolated bits of violence were encouraged, directed, or supported by BLM as a movement.

Of course, I guess if you think "please stop killing us' is hateful...

Point of order: war crimes can only take place during a war. Even if the police were murdering protesters with machine guns, they could not be charged with war crimes.

[Cat Not Included]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Point of order: war crimes can only take place during a war. Even if the police were murdering protesters with machine guns, they could not be charged with war crimes.

Technically true, but doing something that's a war crime when you're not even in a war is even worse. You get that, right?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

Suppose that the hypothetical Nazi organization from comment #1063 had invited a speaker from B'nai B'rith international. This illustrates that the gnome's original conclusion does not always follow, as gnome (sort of) acknowledged in #1088.

In the past I might have regarded the discussion stemming from comment #1063 as merely an unenlightening tangent. Now I will not phrase my next point as a question, as d4m10n just did. No one in this thread is condoning any sort of Nazi violence. No one. The longer the discussion about Nazis has gone on, the more I am convinced that this is a conscious or subconscious diversion to avoid acknowledging the misbehaviors of protestors, especially when they allegedly became violent (at SFSU) or became undisputably violent (at Middlebury).

If you think this 'diversion' has gone on too long, why are you still engaged in it? You're the one who keep advancing arguments but it's my fault for answering them? d4m10n's are related to the Nazi thing too but are different from yours, but he's just the example that speaks against your argument.

Like some far right speaker at a college, you seem to want to be able to have your say but people responding shouldn't be.

The implication that you're only reading my posts that quote you aside, no one has to be defending Nazi violence for my points to be valid, and your objection to wrong. Pretending it doesn't count for the subject or that Nazi goals wouldn't do way worse than any of these 'woke mobs' isn't really a defense of Nazis.

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Agreed 100%. This obsession with focusing on real or imaginary Nazis, is simply a tactic to excuse the violence and inappropriate behavior of other persons. Because, who wants to defend Nazis?

No it isn't and ask d4m10n why the neither the hypothetical or real life examples of Nazis count. He isn't shy about condemning anything remotely 'woke' so I doubt he's trying to excuse the violence and bad behavior of other groups.

It truly is damning that the example as clear cut and extreme as Nazis isn't actually being agreed on, but it just isn't.

[Hercules56]

Interesting twist on the whole debate about free speech on campuses.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-pa...us-free-speech

Seems many conservatives are very gung-ho about freedom of speech especially on public campuses..... But that's until the Palestinians come!!!

In this case conservatives want public funding to stop going to colleges that allow speakers that they don't like.

I guess sometimes the woke mob and conservatives have things in common.

[dirtywick]

it was performative from the beginning

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

You're denying that Nazis marching and doing violence to uphold white supremacy isn't preventing campus speech...well because you don't think it counts.

If the tiki torch mobs at UVA prevented campus speech from happening (presumably at UVA) that was undoubtedly wrong. It may have gone unnoticed in the glare of the more obvious immorality of actively upholding white supremacy, though. Certainly it has gone uncommented in this thread, since you failed to show whose speech was prevented and how.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

No it isn't and ask d4m10n why the neither the hypothetical or real life examples of Nazis count.

If they intimated a speaker into silence, that certainly would count. I can look up some real world examples if you don't have the time.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If the tiki torch mobs at UVA prevented campus speech from happening (presumably at UVA) that was undoubtedly wrong. It may have gone unnoticed in the glare of the more obvious immorality of actively upholding white supremacy, though. Certainly it has gone uncommented in this thread, since you failed to show whose speech was prevented and how.

If they intimated a speaker into silence, that certainly would count. I can look up some real world examples if you don't have the time.

3 of the tiki torch guys have been charged with a state law against using torches in displays of intimidation:

Quote:

At least three people who carried flaming tiki torches at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 have been indicted on state charges that they intimidated others during an explosive demonstration that shocked the nation.

In a news release on Tuesday, James Hingeley, the Albemarle County commonwealth’s attorney, said multiple people had been indicted in connection with the rally on the night of Aug. 11, 2017, on the University of Virginia campus. The indictments “were issued as part of a criminal investigation that is active and ongoing,” he said.

While it is unclear how many people will eventually face charges, indictments were unsealed this week charging William Zachary Smith, of Nocona, Texas; Tyler Bradley Dykes, of Bluffton, S.C.; and Dallas Medina, of Ravenna, Ohio, with one count each of burning an object with the intent to intimidate. The felony carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/18/u...0the%20nation.

Nearly 6 years after the fact.

[d4m10n]

Were the people intimidated into silence?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/us/uv...now/index.html

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Were the people intimidated into silence?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/us/uv...now/index.html

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

The ones that were killed or hospitalized were pretty effectively silenced.

[d4m10n]

Does anyone doubt that was profoundly wrong?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[d4m10n]

Abbie: "Hey, we think that it might have been problematic to make Riley Gaines cower in a room for several hours when all she did was give a speech about her experiences and values."

Bert: "Murderous Nazis are worse, though."

Abbie: "Yes, they are."

*fin*

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Interesting twist on the whole debate about free speech on campuses.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-pa...us-free-speech

Seems many conservatives are very gung-ho about freedom of speech especially on public campuses..... But that's until the Palestinians come!!!

In this case conservatives want public funding to stop going to colleges that allow speakers that they don't like.

I guess sometimes the woke mob and conservatives have things in common.

Curious if the Left would have supported graduating students trying to shout down and disrupt this speakers offensive and hate-filled rant against the USA, police & Jews.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Abbie: "Hey, we think that it might have been problematic to make Riley Gaines cower in a room for several hours when all she did was give a speech about her experiences and values."

Bert: "Murderous Nazis are worse, though."

Abbie: "Yes, they are."

*fin*

Turns out there's a post-credit scene:

Bert: If you care so much about censorious behavior, why do you obsess over the lowest stakes version of it and only pay lip service to acknowledging the worst offenders?

I heard the sequel is just going to be two and half hours of Abbie 's circle-jerk sophistry with the occasional meaningless buzzword like "woke mob" thrown in. Can't wait.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Curious if the Left would have supported graduating students trying to shout down and disrupt this speakers offensive and hate-filled rant against the USA, police & Jews.

Curious if Hercules56 will start a thread titled "Is the conservative mob destroying college education?".

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Curious if Hercules56 will start a thread titled "Is the conservative mob destroying college education?".

If we start seeing a new trend of conservatives attacking college speakers, then yes.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

If we start seeing a new trend of conservatives attacking college speakers, then yes.

Well, that would require you to actually pay attention. My expectations in that regard are not high.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Bert: If you care so much about censorious behavior, why do you obsess over the lowest stakes version of it and only pay lip service to acknowledging the worst offenders?

Abbie: The thing is, I was reading a thread specifically about campus culture, which leans to the left unless you're talking about private sectarian schools. Of course, no one expects religious schools to contribute to the knowledge production function we expect of universities more generally, so they basically do not count in terms of the social value of the university as an institution. Do you happen to have any examples of conservatives shouting down or deplatforming progressive speakers on a secular college campus?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Well, that would require you to actually pay attention. My expectations in that regard are not high.

Interesting. Looks like there are snowflakes on the Left AND Right who hate free speech.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Abbie: The thing is, I was reading a thread specifically about campus culture, which leans to the left unless you're talking about private sectarian schools. Of course, no one expects religious schools to contribute to the knowledge production function we expect of universities more generally, so they basically do not count in terms of the social value of the university as an institution. Do you happen to have any examples of conservatives shouting down or deplatforming progressive speakers on a secular college campus?

You don't think the calls to curtail the rights to protest that you and other right wingers have espoused in this thread is an attack on free speech?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by lomiller

You don't think the calls to curtail the rights to protest that you and other right wingers have espoused in this thread is an attack on free speech?

That depends on the nature of the curtailment proposed. I tend to agree with SCOTUS that certain time/place/manner restrictions are permissible in order to allow different sides of an issue to perform their speech without physically engaging one another. One example of this might be the protestors we heard outside of the Oxford Union during Kathleen Stock's recent presentation.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

That depends on the nature of the curtailment proposed. I tend to agree with SCOTUS that certain time/place/manner restrictions are permissible in order to allow different sides of an issue to perform their speech without physically engaging one another. One example of this might be the protestors we heard outside of the Oxford Union during Kathleen Stock's recent presentation.

Historically, protestors have had the right to be both seen and heard by those they protest against. Are you suggesting that this right should be taken away?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Historically, protestors have had the right to be both seen and heard by those they protest against. Are you suggesting that this right should be taken away?

Nope, I am suggesting that those who show up to listen to an invited speaker at a public university have a right to hear and understand that speaker.

BTW, do you happen to have any examples of conservatives shouting down or deplatforming progressive speakers on a secular college campus?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Nope, I am suggesting that those who show up to listen to an invited speaker at a public university have a right to hear and understand that speaker.

maybe they should go to a private, rather than public, venue to do so.

1A giveth and taketh away. Get a private room if you want the right to exclude.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

maybe they should go to a private, rather than public, venue to do so.

Public universities are not obligated to allow invited speakers to be shouted down, despite the fervent wishes of some.

BTW, do you happen to have any examples of conservatives shouting down or deplatforming progressive speakers on a secular college campus?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Nope, I am suggesting that those who show up to listen to an invited speaker at a public university have a right to hear and understand that speaker.

Organizers can already arrange the venue and sound system in such a way that the speaker can be heard, so this is a non-issue..

OTOH if you are suggesting those same visitors shouldn't be able to hear the protests against that speaker then you are actively calling for major new restrictions on free speech.